Posted on 05/18/2015 6:19:43 AM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
Big news hit the front page of the New York Times on Saturday, in the form of a long article on China’s efforts to miniaturize its nuclear arsenal. The article, using the annual Pentagon report on Chinese military capabilities as its primary source, noted that the decision to tackle the technical problems associated with miniaturization suggest (but only suggest) a larger shift in nuclear weapons doctrine. As the Times article notes, China has long had the latent capacity to MIRV its nuclear missiles, a step that the United States, the Soviet Union, France, and the United Kingdom took long ago.
The Diplomat has closely followed developments in China’s policy of minimal nuclear deterrence, observing that while China had not yet decided to make the leap toward a nuclear warfighting strategy, the modernization and recapitalization of its force over the past decade could open the door to more offensive options.
Hans Kristensen has argued that this represents a major change in China’s nuclear posture, and a bad day for efforts at limiting the role that nuclear arms play in geopolitics. Others see this shift in more evolutionary terms, as holding to long-established technological red lines put clear limits on China’s ability to maintain a sophisticated deterrent. No one believes that France or the United Kingdom, which have long used MIRVs on submarine-launched ballistic missiles, seriously entertain the offensive use of nuclear weapons. Moreover, it’s worth noting that few American policymakers would even momentarily entertain enduring the level of nuclear insecurity that China lives with on a daily basis.
Does this decision come as a direct response to U.S. anti-ballistic missile efforts? Possibly, but these efforts have been in the works since the middle of last decade. Notably, U.S. efforts have yet to yield a workable defense system that an American president could entrust to defend against even a limited Chinese strike. Still, the notion that BMD loomed large in Chinese thinking can’t be discounted, and would suggest that China has only adjusted, and not fundamentally changed, its choice of deterrent posture.
The broader issue may be how China views the potential for long-term hostility between the U.S. and the PRC. While Americans are generally inclined to wildly overstate the importance of American behavior to the decision-making of foreigners, it can hardly be lost on Beijing that even the “dovish” party in the United States envisions a long-term period of confrontation. The Obama administration has even attempted to sell its primary multilateral economic effort, the TPP, on the grounds of security concerns about China.
There can be little question, however, that U.S. analysts who have long warned about China’s threat to the United States will feel vindicated by this report. It seems likely that the decision to MIRV will support, rather than deter, U.S. pursuit of missile defense systems, which in turn may push China towards a larger nuclear program (especially if China envisions an offensive warfighting doctrine). At some point, we’ll be forced to ask whether Washington and Beijing need to take another page from the Cold War rulebook, and consider bilateral nuclear limitation talks.
Very Interesting
This is the Loral Space gift given by the Clintons for a kickback from China.
I think we should off shore MORE of our manufacturing infra structure to the ChiComs. This will appease them and make us friends. Friends don’t let friends develop MIRVs. < /sarc level=”extreme” >
Obama has done everything he could to kill the program.
We are going to pay a heavy price for electing Obama to the Presidency.
Precision MIRV ICBMs with pinpoint accuracy are 1970'2 and 1980’s technology and we are now 30 years past that.
This technology is well within the capabilities of the Chinese these days, especially with the nuclear warhead and ICBM technology Loral and Clinton gave the Chinese in the 1990’s and even the North Koreans have nuclear ICBMs
What has Obama done to our missile defense programs?
It's doubtful the Chinese would even have been able to reverse engineer our weapons technology at all without the Clintons aid.
Now, with modern technology integrated with American know how, the Chinese may actually be ahead of us .
IIRC I read somewhere that MIRVs are generally considered a first-strike weapon. That their greatest utility is in striking at an adversary’s nuclear forces. Now another enemy will have this capability. Great. :-/
A few years after that I happened to do a Google search on "ring gyro", and discovered that all the white papers written on the subject were coming from China.
This suggests to me that we may be falling tragically behind in the area of nuclear arms tech.
I wonder from stories leaking out slowly if 0bama has, due to lack of upkeep, sidelined 50,60,70,80 or 90% of our nuclear arsenal.
Another Clinton gift - allowing for the transfer of restricted technologies to China.
He dismantled/rendered ineffective the offices and programs to safeguard American hi-tech.
To get around the blocking of blatant & publicly known attempts at transferring restricted tech, Clinton's admin allowed Chinese companies to purchase the American companies (with the tech) and a few months down the road, the American sites are closed and all equipment & tech transferred to the parent company in China...
Loral and Clinton yes.
A U.S. rocket that was ‘crashed’ on takeoff from a Chinese base. It had all the hardware necessary to MIRV and China kept it.
The generation that designed and deployed them is at the youngest 65 years old and there has been very little update and modernizations since then.
The active devices themselves are reaching the end of their useful lives.
Obama has cut our nuclear forces to the bone.
We will regret this disgraceful situation one fine day in the near future..
Can’t see them deploying a new warhead without testing it first. Though they may have in the early 90s when they set off a few.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.